Super interesting take on the intersection between communications and diplomacy, looking at some recent decision on how to create/conduct/disseminate information. it’s a horrible idea for government (any government) to engage in propaganda; at best it will produce short term results, but always leads to long term credibility problems. As Marc Lynch notes:
At a deeper level, these efforts fatally compromise the long-term objective of building free, credible and independent media as the foundation of a democratic system. I've argued many times that support for free and independent media should be at the center of all efforts to promote reform in the region. Only a free and independent media can provide the flow of information, the transparency and demands for accountability, and the open contestation of political ideas necessary for real political pluralism and democracy. Turning the media into a tool for spreading propaganda compromises not only the very media which we should be promoting but also our own credibility in arguing for a free and independent media.
There is no doubt in my mind that communications is a hugely powerful tool, I wouldn’t be in the job I am if that was not the case. But there is a critical distinction that always needs to be made – are we going to use communication tools to educate, illuminate and persuade (where one outcome might be someone saying “i now understand your point of view and still disagree)” or to obfuscate and confuse with an eye toward changing a behavior, even over short term? Especially in the hands of government – any government – the answer sure better be the former.